[rfc-i] not just 'lineprinter' (was Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-flanagan-plaintext-00.txt)
Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhildebr at cisco.com
Mon Jun 30 09:08:37 PDT 2014
On 6/30/14, 8:36 AM, "Dave Crocker" <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
>On 6/30/2014 3:15 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> My browser (Firefox) doesn't treat the FF as page break, thus it doesn't
>> work for me. What is your browser?
>Many applications do not treat FF as a page break. Many do. My windows
>text editor honors it quite nicely and prints pages properly, for example.
I'm going to remember that argument and repeat it back to you once you
start saying that there are some applications that don't process Byte
Order Marks. Although in that case, the number of applications is quite
small, and your case the number that don't process FF is quite large. :)
>What is nice about Brian's suggestion is that it is very inexpensive and
>painless. It does not add meaningful complexity to the document --
>unlike full page headers and footers -- is easily processed, and will
>provide the essential benefit he cites. Namely, intelligent choices for
Did my tooling proposal make sense to you as a way to achieve this? I'm
not yet sold on the need to inject FF-equivalents into the XML.
>It's not a question of whether every app honors FF, but whether it is
>easy for a user who cares about good page breaks to easily get them.
And the avoidance of visual or printed trash for the people that don't
>A FF put into by an intelligent engine that understands constructs
>within the canonical form makes the answer be yes.
Not sure why we're beating a dead horse if you agree that there exists
tooling that will provide a .pdf version that has adequate pagination.
More information about the rfc-interest